Introduction

This is a book about lobbyism. We sometimes call it public policy, government affairs, public affairs or even social change engineering (or well, we don’t but some do). As such it requires a bit of an introduction to the concept of lobbyism, and – as you will see – also a defense of this oft-maligned practice.

This is not a book about the phenomenon of lobbyism, so we need to get that defense out of the way to really dig into what we want to talk about. We want to talk about the craft of lobbyism, the work, the day-to-day grind that lobbyists are engaged in – and we want to document our own experiences of some joint 50 years working in this field.

But first: a defense.

In defense of lobbyism

Lobbyism is, at its simplest, a question of a very simple equation. It consists of the decision maker and an influencer. The influencer wants to exchange knowledge that he or she has for influence over the decisions made by the decision maker.

It is really that simple, and it should really be that simple. If you keep your lobbyism to this very basic equation, you will also be surprisingly successful, since most mature decision makers realize that they do not know everything. They need the information that you can supply and will want to know what you can tell them. And the decision will be better for the information you can supply.

Now, this is the ideal model, but it quickly runs into a lot of problems.

How does the decision maker know that you are sharing all the knowledge you have and only telling the truth? Would it not be rational for you to share information that can be used to shape the decision in a way that is beneficial for you, and hide information that could lead to a decision that harms your business or the cause you are advocating for?

And how do you know that the decision maker will really have society’s best at heart? Could they not be captured by some special interest that will entice them to make a decision that is negative for you, and less than ideal for society overall, but will benefit that special interest?

The knowledge equation only works when there is absolute trust between decision maker and influencer, and that is rarely if ever the case – and probably should not be the case. Most lobbyism, after all, plays out in the real world and needs to take into account the fact that it is sometimes rational to act in your own interest.

So, we adapt.

The decision maker is likely to want to hear from many different sources and consult both you and your competitors or those that advocate against your issue. And you will want laws that hold decision makers responsible for corruption and decisions made on grounds that benefit them more than society overall. We put laws in place that require transparency and we ensure that lobbyists must act openly – and be subject to everything from investigative reporting to parliamentary oversight.

All of those helps us create a situation where we do not need to just act on trust, but we can triangulate the better decision from a rich set of different sources and evaluate decision makers by examining their interests and biases openly.

We have built a framework for lobbyism through different laws, institutions and practices that allow us to still benefit from the knowledge equation without having to base it on blind trust.

This system is one of the more advanced and useful systems for informing collective decision making that we have constructed as a society. While it is often criticized and attacked, and lobbyism is decried as a horrible thing, it is a system that we should try to build out and make more robust and more resilient – because it ensures that we make social decisions based on the best possible, available information out there.

Lobbyism, rightly designed and deployed, is a knowledge coordination mechanism.

Therefore, it is so paradoxical to sometimes hear politicians call for the abolishment of lobbyists and lobbyism. What, exactly, does that mean? Does it mean that we should leave politicians to make these decisions themselves without any knowledge from other actors in society? Do we mean that politicians should have access to unbiased research institutions that advise them and give them all the knowledge they need to make decisions?

That latter idea is worth thinking about.

Most parliaments have research functions that help the parliamentarians compile data, research and information on the issues the work on. It could seem obvious that the answer to our knowledge equation is to just build these out so we do not need to filter through the biased and partial truths that lobbyism produces – and move towards a wholly rational, bureaucratic model of decision making.

We could even imagine that these research functions are set up as adversarial actors – advocating against each-other in front of the parliamentarians to highlight the best of the different arguments and do so in a way that is purely intellectual and focused on the issue, without any irrelevant concerns touching the decision-making process.

But such a process would not be a political decision-making process. It would not accomplish that secondary purpose that all political decision-making serves: to find a way for us all – and yes, this includes companies – to live together.

Political decision making is not just about what is true and false or right or wrong or even about what is legal and illegal. It is ultimately about how we organize our lives together as a polity, and this is what we need to build into the process.

Under the knowledge equation lies something more important – an chance to hear out different interests and actors and integrate their views into decision making. And a chance for them to be, and feel, heard.

In this way lobbyism actually strengthens democracy because it is a participatory practice. Yes, it allows companies to participate, but it also allows unions, environmental organizations, think tanks and academics to participate in social decision making – increasing and not decreasing the legitimacy of the decisions made.

Lobbyism is ultimately about making sure that political decision making is embedded in society and subject to engagement from a multitude of different actors, including companies and others large organizations.

And even if you just ban lobbyism from companies, the end result will be that decision making becomes less valuable.

Now, does this mean that there is no problem with lobbyism at all? No. There are plenty of problems with political decision making – including the impact of money on political decisions – but they are much more general and should not be pinned uniquely on lobbyism as a phenomenon.

Lobbyism can ultimately be a cure to that, if designed right, and not make the problem worse.

A craft not an art

Our reason for writing this book is that we believe that we can – and everyone else in this field can – become better at what we do. This in turn means that we believe that what we are engaged in is a craft rather than an art.

If we simplify, we could say something like this: an art is something inaccessible, something that you engage in in a mysterious way and where the results are not clear from your efforts. Sometimes great art can be created in a second, sometimes it takes years – and artists are rightly revered for their ability to create exciting things.

A craft, on the other hand, is carefully honed over years and years of practice. It contains patterns that can be improved and learned and these patterns are the core of tradecraft, the practices that one generation teaches to the next. Craft improves as we practice it and only when we have mastered a craft does it sometimes look like art.

Craft is teachable, testable and often tedious. It requires time and reflection. But it is also immensely enjoyable if you take the time to engage in it and let it absorb you. Craft can lead to moments of intense flow and allow you to lose yourself in work in a way that not only makes work meaningful, but also allows you to grow as a person.

We believe lobbyism is a craft. Indeed, this is a core assumption of this book and if you disagree with that premise, the book might not be for you – but we hope you enjoy it anyway.

Bad lobbyism

A word on bad lobbyism. On the bribes, on the backroom deals and on the old boys networks where decisions are made well out of reach from democratic transparency – and yes, this still exists. But it is increasingly less efficient and it is never worth it. A good basic assumption is that anything you do that is sketchy or iffy will surface and come back to haunt you.

Bad lobbyism is bad for many reasons, but not least because it hurts the ability of good lobbyists to get their job done, and so it ultimately hurts the craft.

Now, let’s also address the elephant in the room: how can two people previously employed by tech giants say anything credible about good lobbyism? Is it not the case that both Google and Facebook have been caught deploying tactics that are unsavory and just the type of lobbyism that we want to characterize as bad?

We could say things like “mistakes have been made” or “time will tell”, but we are not going to do that. We write this book about the craft from our collective (and sometimes collaborative) experience, and we do not claim that we are above reproach or criticism.

We also do not seek to be absolved or bare our hearts or confess our sins in the ways that many who have worked in the tech sector seem to do these days – because we believe, net on net, that the work we have done, and the social contribution of technology companies, is a net benefit to society.

The reason we want to point out that bad lobbyism does not work is that it really does not work and hurts everyone who wants to make lobbyism their trade and craft.

Why this book?

Finally, then – why write a book like this? Who could possibly be interested? We think there are three core audiences that we hope can use a book like this.

The first are the people engaged in lobbyism as professionals. They will find much in here that they might use to simply validate their own practices and perhaps some that will be novel to them. Our experiences come from the tech sector, but maybe there are ideas and models in here that can help those engaged in NGO-work, or in lobbyism in other sectors as well.

The second are the decision makers, journalists and politicians that are the targets of lobbyism. By providing transparency into playbooks and tradecraft, we hope that politicians can feel more knowledgeable and perhaps even more confident in interacting with lobbyists. We want to establish a standard, a kind of baseline expectation of what good lobbyism is so that it becomes easier to recognize the bad.

The third are decision makers in industry that rely on or work with lobbyists in their own organizations. Here we hope that some understanding for the craft of public policy will both lead to an increased appreciation of colleagues engaged in this work and an easier way to work together. We often joke that working in public policy or lobbyism is great, because everyone can tell you how to do your job – but if we feel that the professional contribution we make is not appreciated that is on us; we need to educate our stakeholders on what the craft is and how we are practicing it.

These three audiences are our main focus. We should also say a few words about what this book is not – and why we made the choice not to write this other book.

This is not a work in social science or a work that deals with lobbyism as an institution or a social phenomenon. We are not approaching what we do in a scientific way – but as practitioners who have been active in the field for a long time. Neither is this a book that proposes a way to improve lobbyism through new regulatory frameworks requiring transparency. Such frameworks will not harm, but if the practice of lobbyism is not constantly improved as well they risk falling short of accomplishing any real improvements.

Finally, this book is a snapshot of how we view the craft now. As we continue to practice we will change our minds on some things, and hopefully, we will learn more new things. That is how craft works. What we have tried to do is to highlight where our understanding is more provisional and where we are fairly sure that we are on to something – and in future editions we will most certainly be able to tell you where we have been wrong. We are wrong a lot – as is anyone earnestly practicing a craft.